House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB251 - Committee on Senate Select Committee on Education Finance
Short Title
Creating the Kansas school equity and enhancement act.
Minutes Content for Wed, May 24, 2017
Chairperson Denning called the meeting to order at 9am. He reviewed the daily agenda, noting the Committee would break for session at 10am, and continue in the afternoon as well if needed.
Chairperson Denning stated he had three conceptual amendments for the Committee. (Attachment 1)
Chairperson Denning motioned to adopt a conceptual amendment that adds a reporting line for the Kansas Department of Education to report by line item the cost per pupil all funds. Seconded by Senator McGinn.
Senator Pettey asked whether the reporting would be by major categories that break out the per pupil funding like Base State Aid, high-density, at-risk, and the other categories identified. Chairperson Denning responded that it was by these major categories and was not broken out by district.
Senator Bollier questioned if districts are going to be able to target money to specific schools for high-density at-risk, how would this be described or reported per pupil. Chairperson Denning stated it would be handled similar to Special Education and wouldn't be appropriated to any district, it would just show spending to help the Legislature and others fully account for all resources being provided to help Kansas kids under each category. Senator Bollier noted she would support the amendment, but wants to ensure the KSBE knows what to report. Discussion ensued to gain clarification on the new reporting line.
Chairperson Denning moved the conceptual amendment as discussed. The amendment passed.
Chairperson Denning motioned to adopt a conceptual amendment for amended appropriation sections. Seconded by Senator McGinn.
This amendment is for technical clean up as requested by KLRD and amends both appropriation sections other than the line items effected by formula pieces of the bill to match the Senate Mega and Omnibus bills.
Senator Bollier asked for clarification if the clean up will happen after the Omnibus bill has passed or before. Senator McGinn responded that if she is understanding it correctly, it will be similar to a reconciliation bill and it helps tie everything together for the books.
Chairperson Denning moved the conceptual amendment. The amendment passed.
Chairperson Denning motioned to approve a conceptual amendment that takes the major categories of funding and split out the appropriation into foundation funding, virtual aid, low and high enrollment, transportation, bilingual, at risk, and career and technical education. Seconded by Senator McGinn.
Chairperson Denning stated this is so we can see the weightings tied to these categories and it adds more transparency in amount and allocation of funding. Senators McGinn, Bollier and Hensley asked clarifying questions. Senator Pettey clarified if the list of major categories will be listed in section 1 and section 2 or a combination. Chairperson Denning responded that section 1 was more for reporting. Senator Hensley noted for the record, when this bill goes to the floor, it would not be subject to the pay-go rule.
Chairperson Denning moved the amendment. The amendment passed.
Senator Baumgardner motioned to adopt Balloon Amendment #22. Seconded by Senator Goddard. (Attachment 2)
Senator Baumgardner stated the purpose is to codify the Committee's intent that at-risk funds are used for under-performing students in the best manner possible to help those students succeed. She further noted that current law does not ensure the full accounting of all dollars used to help under-performing students. For instance, when school districts use LOB dollars to help under-performing students, some districts run those funds through their at-risk accounts while other fail to do so, making it difficult to fully discern all of the resources dedicated to under-performing student success. She stated that starting on page 40, the amendment would help to ensure the best use of at-risk dollars by stating that the State Board will identify and approve evidence-based best practices for at-risk programs and instruction of students receiving at-risk program services. Senator Baumgardner stated it changes language to distinguish between at-risk students for funding purposes (which are free lunch students) and under-performing students (those who are identified as academically at-risk by the proposed amendment).
Senator McGinn questioned if the amendment locks the school districts into having something that is evidence-based that has to be approved when it could be as simple as after school apples and cookies. She commented this would not be an evidence based program, but that it helps the students. She noted she was concerned that we would get tied up into rigid rules and a definition of at-risk students, taking away the ability of the school to determine how to help their students. Senator Baumgardner responded that the State Board was going to identify and approve best practices and this will serve as a guide to districts for the best use of services specifically targeted to under-performing kids. Senator Baumgardner responded that the KSBE has already worked on this list and she anticipates the list will be expanded as more best practices are identified. Senator McGinn asked if the State Board is going to have this list approved by January 1st, 2018, and had concerns that the amendment boxes individuals into specific practices, not allowing individuals schools to undertake other programs if they feel this is beneficial. Senator Baumgardner noted that she did not feel it would exclude academic freedom on things that may help you teach specifics in lessons, but merely helped to ensure efficient and targeted use of at-risk funds. Senator Baumgardner noted that the State Board identifying best-practices was to help attain accountability. Senator McGinn stated she was troubled with the timeline, as well as feeling this would tie up local school districts.
Senator Estes asked what determines At-Risk students. Senator Baumgardner noted that for funding purposes, at-risk students were determined by qualification for free lunch. To determine under-performing students that are eligible for at-risk services, Senator Baumgardner referred to the presentation the previous week by Dr. Randy Watson. Senator Baumgardner concurred with his opinion on the methods of assessing whether students are under-performing, noting this amendment says the school district will determine what students are under-performing and does not tether funding with whether a parent or guardian fills out a free and reduced lunch form.
Senator Bollier noted that physicians have best-practices for procedures. She noted that physicians are not forced to do those, but they are provided a list of best-practices that have been researched and identified to improve their profession. She noted she likes the amendment as it wasn't requiring anything, and it was to be used as a guide for efficient and targeted assistance to under-performing students. Senator Bollier noted that the best-practice list is extensive and has been worked on for a long period of time, and will be a continuing effort of the State Board.
Senator Baumgardner asked for clarification on item D reporting, line 26, are the school districts are already doing this. Nick Myers, Revisor of Statutes, stated that was correct.
Mr. King stated when looking at this balloon amendment he would point out three things:
- He agreed with Senator Bolliers description of the purpose, effect and intent of the amendment's linking of the use of at-risk funding to the State Board's list of general best-practices.
- This amendment not as a restriction requiring specific programs, but an assurance that the funds are used efficiently and exclusively for under-performing students.
- There is a difference in practice and in the law between at-risk students for funding purposes (free lunch students) and the students that qualify for at-risk services. The State Board has a worksheet, previously presented to the Committee and used routinely with districts, that does not limit at-risk services to free lunch students. The State Board authorizes such services on criteria that resembles the under-performing students highlighted at by the Court. Thus, Mr. King viewed the amendment as an effective was of targeting at-risk funding towards the students specified by the Court as needing additional funding.
Senator Pettey asked if presently districts are providing total expenditures for programs, but this amendment has the district providing a list of specific programs and services. Senator Baumgardner responded that this was not correct and that if you look at lines 29 and down, the districts will provide total expenditures for the categories. She noted that funds may come from a variety of places, but each category will have the total expenditures from all funds used. Senator Pettey noted she felt this would create overlapping. Discussion ensued to provide clarification.
Senator Bollier noted this amendment would track the funds used and it would not be to add additional funding above that already provided by the bill. She stated the goal is to track and identify total expenditures targeted specifically at under-performing students.
Chairperson Denning allowed the Committee to break for morning Senate Session. The Committee continued working the bill shortly after.
Chairperson Denning stated that the Baumgardner amendment was being revisited to reflect concerns in the earlier discussion and the Committee would revisit it later in the meeting.
Senator McGinn told the Committee she was able to get more information as requested on the demographics to be added to her previous amendment. She would like to add gender, race, ethnicity, and economically disadvantaged, migrant, ELL, students with disabilities, and get attendance and enrollment reports.
Senator McGinn motioned to adopt the conceptual amendment for adding specific demographics that are reported. Senator Baumgardner seconded the motion.
Senator McGinn moved her amendment. The amendment passed.
The Committee revisited the Baumgardner amendment. Senator Baumgardner stated that the amendment simply states the State Board will list best practices as a guide for effective spending on under-performing students by local districts. She is confident, based on previous testimony from Dr. Watson, that the State Board will provide the wide variety of programs and instructional approaches as part of this list. She noted that nothing in the amendment restricts a school from using something that works for them. Senator Baumgardner noted this is a transparency effort and a means that the Legislature and Court can have access to precise financial data to help them make more informed decisions. She stated she is simply asking, regardless of what fund the money came from, the request would be to report total funding for transparency. Tamera Lawrence was asked to address the specific changes that would occur in subsection (d). She stated it was just to clarify the term at-risk students (both for at-risk weighting and program eligibility) for the purpose of the section.
Dale Dennis, KSDE, was asked to the podium to help clarify the amendment. Mr. Dennis discussed the definition of funds, and programs and services. Mr. Dennis noted that this bill strengthens a pre-existing requirement that specific funds such as at-risk weighting be used for their intended purpose. Mr. Dennis stated that the KSDE had no problem providing a list of general practices. He also stated that he did not believe the language change of at-risk would be of any issue.
Senator Hensley wanted to correct a few references discussed today. When stated we have a law, he noted we did not have a current law. He also noted that the definition of free/reduced lunch does not actually include the word reduced. He discussed his concerns with language, noting he agrees with Senator McGinn and has concerns with the language in this amendment, believing the language would require districts to use only best-practices. Senator Baumgardner and the Revisor Of Statutes helped clarify the amendment to address these concerns. Senator McGinn continued to question the language as she understood it to be language that would require only the best-practices listed by the KSDE. Senator McGinn noted that pilot programs are not yet approved as best-practice programs and she thinks this may restrict them. Senator Baumgardner responded with her intent again and asked for Chairperson Denning to provide guidance in moving forward. Chairperson Denning stated he felt she should withdraw the amendment and then work over the lunch hour to clarify language and bring it back later in the day.
Senator Baumgardner withdrew her amendment #22. Senator Goddard withdrew his second to the motion.
Senator Hensley passed out a handout that would clarify a 2016 update that addresses state and local taxes. (Attachment 3) He discussed the history behind these changes. Senator Hensley also shared data that shows the higher your AVPP, the better the chances of passing LOB or Capital Outlay increases.
Senator Hensley motioned to adopt a conceptual amendment to return the 10 mills on capital outlay back to 8 mills. Seconded by Senator McGinn.
Senator Hensley believes increasing the mill levy would be a violation of equity and is concerned on the impact this change may have. Chairperson Denning spoke on the reasons behind increasing to 10% and how it would help specific districts if they can not pass property tax because they raise such little money. He noted that the Capital Outlay is equalized in a manner accepted by the Kansas Supreme Court. Chairperson Denning stated he sees more positive outcomes than negatives ones.
Chairperson Denning asked Mr. King to address the issue. Mr. King stated in the Montoy case back in 2003-2005, the Court had more concern with the level of LOB and Capital Outlay spending than the Gannon Court has expressed. The Gannon Court has instead emphasized the level of equalization funding for LOB and Capital Outlay, not on how much total spending derives from local sources. He noted that in the Gannon, the Court approved as constitutional Capital Outlay equalized at 75%, and Supplemental LOB funding at 81.2%. He commented that lifting the percentage on an amount on a fund that is equalized at a rate that has already been reviewed and approved by the Court in their equity analysis does not trouble him.
Senator Pettey asked Mr. King to remind the Committee what areas he stated would cause concern to the Courts. They discussed the formula components that utilized unequalized local property tax effort. Senator Pettey asked Mr. King to address the Cost of Living weighting. Mr. King stated that in the old formula there were three unequalized weightings: Cost Of Living, declining enrollment, and ancillary facilities weighting. He noted those 3 weightings were adopted in 2005, stayed by the Court shortly thereafter, and they had the stay permanently lifted in 2006. Senator Pettey and Chairperson Denning discussed equalization details as it pertains to property evaluations.
Senator Hensley noted the amendment did not address the expansion of usage of Capital Outlay to allow for the payment of utilities and property/casualty insurance. He discussed details of this equalization of Capital Outlay and LOB, and the differences. He stated that the usage is expanded, the more the tax cap is increased, he thinks that raises equity concerns. Senator Hensley stated that is why he has offered this amendment. Senator Bollier noted that it has been shown that the current rates are equitable, and unless she hears the Court state differently she does not feel like changes are needed.
Mr. King was asked to discuss Senator Hensley's point about expanding the use of Capital Outlay to include the payment of utility bills. Mr. King stated there was a point that you could expand the use of Capital Outlay (such as permitting those funds to pay teacher salaries) that would likely raise equity concerns. Given the strong link between utilities and property/casualty insurance and capital expenditures, however, he believes the Legislature would have a strong equity position.
Tamera Lawrence, Revisor of Statutes, went over specifics of the bill in regards to what the bill states would fall under Capital Outlay.
Chairperson Denning and Senators McGinn and Hensley discussed the amendment details further.
Senator Hensley moved the amendment. The amendment passed.
The Committee stopped for a lunch break, but will resume at 1:30pm.
